E 

407 

G169 


IC-NRLF 


PEACE  WITH  MEXICO 
A.  Gallatin 


. 


PEACE 


WITH 


MEXICO. 


BY 


ALBERT   GALLATIN. 


BARTLETT  &   WELFORD: 
NO.  7  ASTOR  HOUSE.  NEW  YORK 


I.— THE   LAW   OF   NATIONS. 

IT  seems  certain  that  Mexico  must  ultimately  submit  to  such 
terms  of  peace  as  the  United  States  shall  dictate.  An  heteroge« 
neous  population  of  seven  millions,  with  very  limited  resources. 
and  no  credit ;  distracted  by  internal  dissensions,  and  by  the  ambi 
tion  of  its  chiefs,  a  prey  by  turns  to  anarchy  and  to  military  usur 
pers  ;  occupying  among  the  nations  of  the  civilized  world,  either 
physically  or  mentally,  whether  in  political  education,  social  state, 
or  any  other  respect,  but  an  inferior  j^sLtjon ;  cannot  contend  suc 
cessfully  with  an  energetic,  intelligent,  enlightened  and  united  na 
tion  of  twenty  millions,  possessed  of  unlimited  resources  and  credit, 
and  enjoying  all  the  benefits  of  a  regular,  strong,  and  free  govern 
ment.  All  this  was  anticipated  ;  but  the  extraordinary  successes  of 
the  Americans  have  exceeded  the  most  sanguine  expectations.  AH 
the  advanced  posts  of  the  enemy  |  New  Mexico,  California,  the  line 
of  the  lower  Rio  Norte,  and  all  the  sea  ports,  which  it  was  deemed 
necessary  to  occupy,  have  been  subdued.^  And  a  small  force,  ap 
parently  incompetent  to  the  object,  has  penetrated  near  three  hun 
dred  miles  into  the  interior,  and  is  now  in  quiet  possession  of  the 
far-famed  metropolis  of  the  Mexican  dominions.  The  superior  skill 
and  talents  of  our  distinguished  generals,  and  the  unparalleled 
bravery  of  our  troops,  have  surmounted  all  obstacles.  By  whom 
soever  commanded  on  either  side ;  however  strong  the  positions 
and  fortifications  of  the  Mexicans,  and  with  a  tremendous  nu 
merical  superiority,  there  has  not  been  a  single  engagement,  in 
which  they  have  not  been  completely  defeated.  The  most  re 
markable  and  unexpected  feature  of  that  warfare  is,  that  volun 
teers,  wholly  undisciplined  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  have  vied  in 
devotedness  and  bravery  with  the  regular  forces,  and  have  proved 
themselves,  in  every  instance,  superior  in  the  open  field  to  the  best 
regular  forces  of  Mexico.  These  forces  are  now  annihilated  or 
dispersed;  and  the  Mexicans  are  reduced  to  a  petty  warfare  of 
guerillas  which,  however  annoying,  cannot  be  productive  of  any 
important  results. 

It  is  true,  that  these  splendid  successes  have  been  purchased  at 
a  price  far  exceeding  their  value.  It  is  true  that,  neither  the  glory 
of  these  military  deeds,  nor  the  ultimate  utility  of  our  conquests 


can  compensate  the  lamentable  loss  of  the  many  thousand  valuable 
lives  sacrificed  in  the  field,  of  the  still  greater  number  who  have 
met  with  an  obscure  death,  or  been  disabled  by  disease  and  fatigue, 
ft  is  true  that  their  relatives,  their  parents,  their  wives  and  children 
find  no  consolation,  for  the  misery  inflicted  upon  them,  in  the  still 
greater  losses  experienced  by  the  Mexicans.  But  if,  disregarding 
private  calamities  and  all  the  evils  of  a  general  nature,  the  neces 
sary  consequences  of  this  war,  we  revert  solely  to  the  relative 
position  of  the  two  countries,  the  impotence  of  the  Mexicans  and 
their  total  inability  to  continue  the  war,  with  any  appearance  of 
success,  are  still  manifest. 

The  question  then  occurs  :  What  are  the  terms  which  the  United 
States  have  a  right  to  impose  on  Mexico  ?  All  agree  that  it  must 
be  an  "  honorable  peace ;"  but  the  true  meaning  of  this  word  must 
in  the  first  place  be  ascertained. 

The  notion,  that  anything  can  be  truly  honorable  which  is  con 
trary  to  justice,  will,  as  an  abstract  proposition,  be  repudiated  by 
every  citizen  of  the  United  States.     Will  any  one  dare  to  assert, 
/  that  a  peace  can  be  honorable,  which  does  not  conform  with  jus 
tice  ? 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  discovering  the  principles  by  which  the 
-elations  between  civilized  and  Christian  nations  should  be  reg- 
ula  ^d,  and  the  reciprocal  duties  which  they  owe  to  each  other. 
These  principles,  these  duties  have  long  since  been  proclaimed  ;  and 
the  true  law  of  nations  is  nothing  else  than  the  conformity  to  the 
sublime  precepts  of  the  Gospel  mobility,  precepts  equally  applicable 
to  the  relations  between  man  and  man,  and  to  the  intercourse 
between  nation  and  nation.  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself."  "  Love  your  enemies."  "  As  you  would  that  men  should 
do  to  you,  do  ye  also  to  them  likewise."  The  sanctity  of  these 
commands  is  acknowledged,  without  a  single  exception,  by  every 
denomination  of  Christians,  or  of  men  professing  to  be  such.  The 
sceptical  philosopher  admits  and  admires  the  precept.  To  this 
holy  rule  we  should  inflexibly  adhere  when  dictating  the  terms  of 
peace.  The  UnitecUStates,  though  they  have  the  power,  have  no 
right  to  impose  terms  inconsistent  with  justice.  It  would  be  a 
shameful  dereliction  of  principle,  on  the  part  of  those  who  were 
averse  to  the  annexation  of  Texas,  to  countenance  any  attempt  to 
claim  an  acquisition  of  territory,  or  other  advantage,  on  account 
of  the  success  of  our  arms. 


f> 

But  in  judging  the  acts  of  our  Government,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  statesmen  think  a  conformity  to  these  usages  which  con 
stitute  the  law  of  nations,  not  as  it  should  be,  but  as  it  is  practically, 
sufficient  to  justify  their  conduct.  And  by  that  inferior  standard, 
those  acts  and  our  duties  in  relation  to  Mexico  will  be  tested. 


II.— INDEMNITIES    TO   CITIZENS   OF   THE 
UNITED   STATES. 

: 

The  United  States  had,  and  continue  to  have,  an  indubitable 
right  to  demajidjyull^^  for  any  wrongs  inflicted  on  our 

citizens  by  the  Government  of  Mexico,  in  violation  of  treaties  or 
of  the  acknowledged  law  of  nations.  The  negotiations  for  satisfy 
ing  those  just  demands,  had  been  interrupted  by  the  annexation 
of  Texas.  When  an  attempt  was  subsequently  made  to  renew 
them,  it  was  therefore  just  and  proper,  that  both  subjects  should 
be  discussed  at  the  same  time  :  and  it  is  now  absolutely  necessary, 
that  those  just  claims  should  be  fully  provided  for,  in  any  treaty 
of  peace  that  may  be  concluded,  and  that  the  payment  should  be 
secured  against  any  possible  contingency.  I  take  it  for  granted 
that  no  claims  have  been,  or  shall  be  sustained  by  our  Govern 
ment,  but  such  as  are  founded  on  treaties  or  the  acknowledged 
law  of  nations. 

Whenever  a  nation  becomes  involved  in  war,  the  manifestoes, 
and  every  other  public  act  issued  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  its 
conduct,  always  embrace  every  ground  of  complaint  which  can 
possibly  be  alleged.  But  admitting,  that  the  refusal  to  satisfy  the 
claims  for  indemnity  of  our  citizens  might  have  been  a  just  cause 
of  war,  it  is  most  certain,  that  those  claims  were  not  the  cause  of 
that  in  which  we  are  now  involved. 

It  may  be  proper,  in  the  first  place,  to  observe,  that  the  refusal 
of  doing  justice,  in  cases  of  this  kind,  or  the  long  delays  in  providing 
for  them,  have  not  generally  produced  actual  war.  Almost  always 
long  protracted  negotiations  have  been  alone  resorted  to.  This  has 
been  strikingly  the  case  with  the  United  States.  Hhe  claims  of 
Great  Britain  for  British  debts,  secured  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  were 
not  settled  and  paid  till  the  year  1803 ;  and  it  was  only  subsequent 
to  that  year,  that  the  claims  of  the  United  States,  for  depredations 


committed  in  1793,  were  satisfied.  The  very  plain  question  of 
slaves,  carried  away  by  the  British  forces  in  1815,  in  open  viola 
tion  of  the  treaty  of  1814,  was  not  settled  and  the  indemnity  paid 
till  the  year  1826.  The  claims  against  France  for  depredations, 
committed  in  the  years  1806  to  1813,  were  not  settled  and  paid 
for  till  the  year  1834.  In  all  those  cases,  peace  was  preserved  by 
patience  and  forbearance. 

With  respect  to  the  Mexican  indemnities,  the  subject  had  been 
laid  more  than  once  before  Congress,  not  without  suggestions  that 
strong  measures  should  be  resorted  to.  But  Congress,  in  whom 
alone  is  vested  the  power  of  declaring  war,  uniformly  declined 
doing  it. 

A  convention  was  entered  into  on  the  llth  of  April,  1839,  be 
tween  the  United  States  and  Mexico,  by  virtue  of  which  a  joint 
commission  was  appointed  for  the  examination  and  settlement  of 
those  claims.  The  powers  of  the  Commissioners  terminated,  ac 
cording  to  the  convention,  in  February,  1842.  The  total  amount 
of  the  American  claims,  presented  to  the  commission,  amounted  to 
6,291,605  dollars.  Of  these,  2,026,140  dollars  were  allowed  by  the 
commission ;  a  further  sum  of  928,628  dollars  was  allowed  by  the 
commissioners  of  the  United  States,  rejected  by  the  Mexican  com 
missioners,  and  left  undecided  by  the  umpire,  and  claims  amount 
ing  to  3,336,837  dollars  had  not  been  examined. 

A  new  convention,  dated  January  30,  1843,  granted  to  the  Mex 
icans  a  further  delay  for  the  payment  of  the  claims  which  had  beer- 
admitted,  by  virtue  of  which  the  interest  due  to  the  claimants  was 
made  payable  on  the  30th  April,  1843,  and  the  principal  of  the 
awards,  and  the  interest  accruing  thereon,  was  stipulated  to  be 
paid  in  five  years,  in  twenty  equal  instalments  every  three  months. 
The  claimants  received  the  interest  due  on  the  30th  April,  1843, 
and  the  three  first  instalments.  The  agent  of  the  United  States 
having,  under  peculiar  circumstances,  given  a  receipt  for  the  in- 
Nfahnents  due  in  April  and  July,  1844,  before  they  had  been  actu 
ally  paid  by  Mexico,  the  payment  has  been  assumed  by  the  United 
States  and  discharged  to  the  claimants. 

A  third  convention  was  concluded  at  Mexico  on  the  20th  No 
vember,  1843,  by  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  the  two  Governments,  by 
which  provision  was  made  for  ascertaining  and  paying  the  claims, 
on  which  no  final  decision  had  been  made.  In  January,  1844,  this 
convention  was  ratified  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  with 


7 

two  amendments,  which  were  referred  to  the  Government  of 
Mexico,  but  respecting  which  no  answer  has  ever  been  made.  On 
the  12th  of  April,  1844,  a  treaty  was  concluded  by  the  President  . 
with  Texas,  for  the  annexation  of  that  republic  to  the  United 
States.  This  treaty,  though  not  ratified  by  the  Senate,  placed  the 
two  countries  in  a  new  position,  and  arrested  for  a  while  all  nego 
tiations.  It  was  only  on  the  1st  of  March,  1845,  that  Congress 
passed  a  joint  resolution  for  the  annexation. 

It  appears  most  clearly,  that  the  United  States  are  justly  entitled 
to  a  full  indemnity  for  the  injuries  done  to  their  citizens ;  that,  be 
fore  the  annexation  of  Texas,  there  was  every  prospect  of  securing 
that  indemnity ;  and  that  those  injuries,  even  if  they  had  been  a 
just  cause  for  war,  were  in  no  shape  whatever  the  cause  of  that 
in  which  we  are  now  involved. 

Are  the  United  States  justly  entitled  to  indemnity  for  any  other 
cause  ?  This  question  cannot  be  otherwise  solved,  than  by  an  in 
quiry  into  the  facts,  and  ascertaining  by  whom,  and  how,  the  war 
was  provoked. 


III.— ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS. 

At  the  time  when  the  annexation  of  Texas  took  place,  Texas 
had  been  recognized  as  an  independent  power,  both  by  the  United 
States  and  by  several  of  the  principal  European  powers  ;  but  its 
independence  had  not  been  recognized  by  Mexico,  and  the  two 
contending  parties  continued  to  be  at  war.  Under  those  circum 
stances,  there  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  the  annexation  of  Texas 
was  tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  war  against  Mexico.  Nothing 
can  be  more  clear  and  undeniable  than  that,  whenever  two  nations 
are  at  war,  if  a  third  Power  shall  enter  into  a  treaty  of  alliance, 
offensive  and  defensive,  with  either  of  the  belligerents,  and  if  such 
treaty  is  not  contingent,  and  is  to  take  effect  immediately  and 
pending  the  war,  such  treaty  is  a  declaration  of  war  against  the 
other  party.  The  causes  of  the  war  between  the  two  belligerents 
do  not  alter  the  fact.  Supposing  that  the  third  party,  the  inter 
fering  Power,  should  have  concluded  the  treaty  of  alliance  with 
that  belligerent  who  was  clearly  engaged  in  a  most  just  war,  the 
treaty  would  not  be  the  less  a  declaration  of  war  against  the  other 
belligerent. 


8 

If  Great  Britain  and  France  were  at  war,  and  the  United  States 
were  to  enter  into  such  a  treaty  with  either,  can  there  be  the 
slightest  doubt  that  this  would  be  actual  war  against  the  other 
party  ?  that  it  would  be  considered  as  such,  and  that  it  must  have 
been  intended  for  that  purpose  ?  If  at  this  moment,  either  France 
or  England  were  to  make  such  a  treaty  with  Mexico,  thereby 
binding  themselves  to  defend  and  protect  it  with  all  their  forces 
against  any  other  Power  whatever,  would  not  the  United  States 
instantaneously  view  such  a  treaty  as  a  declaration  of  war,  and 
act  accordingly  ? 

But  the  annexation  of  Texas,  by  the  United  States,  was  even 
more  than  a  treaty  of  offensive  and  defensive  alliance.  It  em 
braced  all  the  conditions  and  all  the  duties  growing  out  of  the 
alliance  ;  and  it  imposed  them  forever.  From  the  moment  when 
Texas  had  been  annexed,  the  United  States  became  bound  to  pro 
tect  and  defend  her,  so  far  as  her  legitimate  boundaries  extended, 
against  any  invasion,  or  attack,  on  the  part  of  Mexico  :  and  they 
have  uniformly  acted  accordingly. 

There  is  no  impartial  publicist  that  will  not  acknowledge  the 
indubitable  truth  of  these  positions :  it  appears  to  me  impossible, 
that  they  should  be  seriously  denied  by  a  single  person. 

It  appears  that  Mexico  was  at  that  time  disposed  to  acknowledge 
the  independence  of  Texas,  but  on  the  express  condition,  that  it 
should  not  be  annexed  to  the  United  States ;  and  it  has  been  sug 
gested,  that  this  was  done  under  the  influence  of  some  European 
Powers.  Whether  this  last  assertion  be  true  or  not,  is  not  known 
to  me.  But  the  condition  was  remarkable  and  offensive. 

Under  an  apprehension  that  Texas  might  be  tempted  to  accept 
the  terms  proposed,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  may 
have  deemed  it  expedient  to  defeat  the  plan,  by  offering  that  annex 
ation,  which  had  been  formerly  declined,  when  the  Government 
of  Texas  was  anxious  for  it. 

It  may  be  admitted  that,  whether  independent  or  annexed  to 
the  United  States,  Texas  must  be  a  slave-holding  state,  so  long  as 
slavery  shall  continue  to  exist  in  North  America.  Its  whole  pop 
ulation,  with  hardly  any  exception,  consisted  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  Both  for  that  reason,  and  on  account  of  its  geo 
graphical  position,  it  was  much  more  natural,  that  Texas  should 
be  a  member  of  the  United  States,  than  of  the  Mexican  Con 
federation.  Viewed  purely  as  a  question  of  expediency,  the  an- 


nexation  might  be  considered  as  beneficial  to  both  parties.  But 
expediency  is  not  justice.  Mexico  and  Texas  had  a  perfect  right 
to  adjust  their  differences  and  make  peace,  on  any  terms  they 
might  deem  proper.  The  anxiety  to  prevent  this  result  indicated 
a  previous  disposition  ultimately  to  occupy  Texas:  and  when  the 
annexation  was  accomplished  ;  when  it  was  seen,  that  the  United 
States  had  appropriated  to  themselves  all  the  advantages  resulting 
from  the  American  settlements  in  Texas,  and  from  their  subsequent 
insurrection ;  the  purity  of  the  motives  of  our  Government  be 
came  open  to  suspicion. 

Setting  aside  the  justice  of  the  proceeding,  it  is  true  that  it  had 
been  anticipated,  by  those  who  took  an  active  part  in  the  annex 
ation,  that  the  weakness  of  Mexico  would  compel  it  to  yield,  or  at 
least  induce  her  not  to  resort  to  actual  war.  This  was  verified  by 
the  fact :  and  had  Government  remained  in  the  hands  with  whom 
the  plan  originated,  war  might  probably  have  been  avoided.  But 
when  no  longer  in  power,  they  could  neither  regulate  the  impulse 
they  had  given,  nor  control  the  reckless  spirits  they  had  evoked. 

Mexico,  sensible  of  her  weakness,  declined  war,  and  only  resorted 
to  a  suspension  of  diplomatic  intercourse ;  but  a  profound  sense  of 
the  injury  inflicted  by  the  United  States  has  ever  since  rankled  in 
their  minds.  It  will  be  found,  through  all  their  diplomatic  corres 
pondence,  through  all  their  manifestoes,  that  the  Mexicans,  even  to 
this  day,  perpetually  recur  to  this  never-forgotten  offensive  measure. 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  subsequent  administration  of  our  Gov 
ernment  seems  to  have  altogether  forgotten  this  primary  act  of  in 
justice,  and,  in  their  negotiations,  to  have  acted  as  if  this  was  only 
an  accomplished  fact,  and  had  been  a  matter  of  course. 


IV.— NEGOTIATIONS  AND   WAR. 

In  September,  1845,  the  President  of  the  United  States  directed 
their  consul  at  Mexico  to  ascertain  from  the  Mexican  Government, 
whether  it  would  receive  an  Envoy  from  the  United  States,  in 
trusted  with  full  power  to  adjust  all  the  questions  in  dispute  between 
the  two  Governments. 

The  answer  of  Mr.  De  la  Pena  y  Pena,  Minister  of  the  Foreign 
Relations  of  Mexico,  was,  "  That  although  the  Mexican  nation  was 


10 

deeply  injured  by  the  United  States,  through  the  acts  committed  by 
them  in  the  department  of  Texas,  which  belongs  to  his  nation,  his 
Government  was  disposed  to  receive  the  Commissioner  of  the  United 
States  who  might  come  to  the  capital,  with  full  powers  from  his 
Government  to  settle  the  present  dispute  in  a  peaceful,  reasonable 
and  honorable  manner  ;"  thus  giving  a  new  proof  that,  even  in  the 
midst  of  its  injuries  and  of  its  firm  decision  to  exact  adequte  repa 
ration  for  them,  the  Government  of  Mexico  does  not  reply  with 
contumely  to  the  measures  of  reason  and  peace  to  which  it  was 
invited  by  its  adversary. 

The  Mexican  Minister  at  the  same  time  intimated,  that  the  pre 
vious  recall  of  the  whole  Naval  force  of  the  United  States,  then 
lying  in  sight  of  the  port  of  Vera  Cruz,  was  indispensable ;  and  this 
was  accordingly  done  by  our  Government. 

But  it  is  essential  to  observe  that,  whilst  Mr.  Black  had,  accord 
ing  to  his  instructions,  inquired,  whether  the  Mexican  Government 
would  receive  an  Envoy  from  the  United  States,  with  full  power 
to  adjust  all  the  questions  in  dispute  between  the  two  Governments, 
the  Mexican  Minister  had  answered,  that  his  Government  was  dis 
posed  to  receive  the  Commissioner  of  the  United  States,  who  might 
come  with  full  powers  to  settle  the  present  dispute  in  a  peaceful, 
reasonable  and  honorable  manner. 

Mr.  Slidell  was,  in  November  following,  appointed  Envoy  Ex 
traordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  of 
America  near  the  Government  of  the  Mexican  Republic ;  and  he 
arrived  in  Mexico  on  the  sixth  of  December. 

Mr.  Herrera,  the  President  of  Mexico,  was  undoubtedly  disposed 
to  settle  the  disputes  between  the  two  countries.  But  taking  ad 
vantage  of  the  irritation  of  the  mass  of  the  people,  his  political  op 
ponents  were  attempting  to  overset  him  for  having  made,  as  they 
said,  unworthy  concessions.  The  arrival  of  Mr.  Slidell  disturbed 
him  extremely  ;  and  Mr.  Pena  y  Pena  declared  to  Mr.  Black,  that 
his  appearance  in  the  capital  at  this  time  might  prove  destructive 
to  the  Government,  and  thus  defeat  the  whole  affair.  Under  these 
circumstances  General  Herrera  complained,  without  any  founda 
tion,  that  Mr.  Slidell  had  come  sooner  than  had  been  understood  ; 
he  resorted  to  several  frivolous  objections  against  the  tenor  of  his 
powers;  and  he  intimated  that  the  difficulties  respecting  Texas 
must  be  adjusted  before  any  other  subject  of  discussion  should  be 
taken  into  consideration. 


II 

But  the  main  question  was,  whether  Mexico  should  receive  Mr. 
Slidell  in  the  character  of  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Pleni 
potentiary,  to  reside  in  the  republic.  It  was  insisted  by  the  Mex 
ican  Government,  that  it  had  only  agreed  to  receive  a  commissioner, 
to_Jreat  on  the  questions  which  had  arisen  from  the  events  in 
Texas  ;  and  that  until  this  was  done,  the  suspended  diplomatic  in 
tercourse  could  not  be  restored,  and  a  residing  minister  plenipo 
tentiary  be  admitted. 

Why  our  Government  should  have  insisted,  that  the  intended 
negotiation  should  be  carried  on  by  a  residing  Envoy  Extraordinary 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  is  altogether  unintelligible.  The  ques 
tions  at  issue  might  have  been  discussed  and  settled  as  easily,  fully 
and  satisfactorily,  by  commissioners  appointed  for  that  special 
purpose,  as  by  residing  ministers  or  envoys.  It  is  well  known  that 
whenever  diplomatic  relations  have  been  superseded  by  war,  trea 
ties  of  peace  are  always  negotiated  by  commissioners  appointed 
for  that  special  purpose,  who  are  personally  amply  protected  by 
the  law  of  nations,  but  who  are  never  received  as  resident  minis 
ters,  till  after  the  peace  has  restored  the  ordinary  diplomatic  inter 
course.  Thus  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  between  France  and 
England,  was  negotiated  and  concluded  at  Paris  by  British  com 
missioners,  whom  it  would  have  been  deemed  absurd  to  admit  as 
resident  envoys  or  ministers,  before  peace  had  been  made. 

The  only  distinction  which  can  possibly  be  made  between  the 
two  cases  is,  that  there  was  not  as  yet  actual  war  between  'Mexico 
and  the  United  States.  But  the  annexation  of  Texas  was  no 
ordinary  occurrence.  It  was  a  most  clear  act  of  unprovoked 
aggression ;  a  deep  and  most  offensive  injury ;  in  fact,  a  declara 
tion  of  war,  if  Mexico  had  accepted  it  as  such.  In  lieu  of  this-, 
that  country  had  only  resorted  to  a  suspension  of  the  ordinary 
diplomatic  relations.  It  would  seem  as  if  our  Government  had 
considered  this  as  an  act  of  unparalleled  audacity,  which  Mexico 
must  be  compelled  to  retract,  before  any  negotiations  for  the  ar 
rangement  of  existing  difficulties  could  take  place ;  as  an  insult  to 
the  Government  and  to  the  nation,  which  must  compel  it  to  assert 
its  just  rights  and  to  avenge  its  injured  honor. 

General  Herrera  was  not  mistaken  in  his  anticipations.  His 
government  was  overset  in  the  latter  end  of  the  month  of  Decem 
ber,  1845,  and  fell  into  the  hands  of  those  who  had  denounced  him 


12 

for  having  listened  to  overtures  of  an  arrangement  of  the  difficul 
ties  between  the  two  nations. 

When  Mexico  felt  its  inability  to  contend  with  the  United 
States ;  and,  instead  of  considering  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  be, 
as  it  really  was,  tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  war,  only  sus 
pended  the  ordinary  diplomatic  relations  between  the  two  coun 
tries,  its  Government,  if  directed  by  wise  counsels,  and  not  im 
peded  by  popular  irritation,  should  at  once,  since  it  had  already 
agreed  to  recognize  the  independence  of  Texas,  have  entered  into 
a  negotiation  with  the  United  States.  At  that  time  there  would 
have  been  no  intrinsic  difficulty  in  making  a  final  arrangement^ 
founded  on  an  unconditional  recognition  of  the  independence  of 
Texas,  within  its  legitimate  boundaries.  Popular  feeling  and  the 
ambition  of  contending  military  leaders,  prevented  that  peaceable 
termination  of  those  unfortunate  dissensions. 

Yet,  when  Mexico  refused  to  receive  Mr.  Slidell  as  an  Envoy 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  the  United  States 
should  have  remembered,  that  w.e  iiad  been  the  aggressors,  that 
we  had  committed  an  act  acknowledged,  as  well  by  the  practical 
law  of  nations,  as  by  common  sense  and  common  justice,  to  be 
tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  war ;  and  they  should  have  waited 
with  patience,  till  the  feelings  excited  by  our  own  conduct  had 
subsided. 

General  Taylor  had  been  instructed  by  the  War  Department,  as 
early  as  May  28,  1845,  to  cause  the  forces  under  his  command  to 
be  put  into  a  position  where  they  might  most  promptly  and  effici 
ently  act  in  defence  of  Texas,  in  the  event  that  it  should  become 
necessary  or  proper  to  employ  them  for  that  purpose.  By  subse 
quent  instructions,  and  after  the  people  of  Texas  had  accepted  the 
proposition  of  annexation,  he  was  directed  to  select  and  occupy  a 
position  adapted  to  repel  invasion,  as  near  the  boundary  line,  the 
Rio  Grande,  as  prudence  would  dictate ;  and  that,  with  this  view, 
a  part  of  his  forces  at  least  should  be  west  of  the  river  Nueces. 
It  was  certainly  the  duty  of  the  President  to  protect  Texas  against 
invasion,  from  the  moment  it  had  been  annexed  to  the  United 
States;  and  as  that  republic  was  in  actual  possession  of  Corpus 
Christi,  which  was  the  position  selected  by  General  Taylor,  there 
was  nothing,  in  the  position  he  had  taken,  indicative  of  any  danger 
of  actual  hostilities. 

But  our  Government  seems  to  have  considered  the  refusal,  on  the 


13 

part  of  Mexico,  to  receive  Mr.  Slidell  as  a  resident  Envoy  of  the 
United  States,  as  necessarily  leading  to  war.  The  Secretary  of 
State,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Slidell  of  January  28,  1846,  says : — 
"  Should  the  Mexican  Government  finally  refuse  to  receive  you, 
the  cup  of  forbearance  will  then  have  been  exhausted.  Nothing 
can  remain  but  to  take  the  redress  of  the  injuries  to  our  citizens, 
and  the  insults  to  our  Government,  into  our  own  hands."  And 
again,  "  Should  the  Mexican  Government  finally  refuse  to  receive 
you,  then  demand  passports  from  the  proper  authority,  and  return 
to  the  United  States.  It  will  then  become  the  duty  of  the  Presi 
dent  to  submit  the  whole  case  to  Congress,  and  call  upon  the  nation 
to  assert  its  just  rights,  and  avenge  its  injured  honor." 

With  the  same  object  in  view,  the  Secretary  of  War  did,  by  his 
letter  dated  January  13,  1846,  instruct  General  Taylor  "to  ad 
vance  and  occupy,  with  the  troops  under  his  command,  positions 
on  or  near  the  east  bank  of  the  Rio  del  Norte It  is  pre 
sumed  Point  Isabel  will  be  considered  by  you  an  eligible  position. 
This  point,  or  some  one  near  it,  and  points  opposite  Matamoras 
and  Mier,  and  in  the  vicinity  of  Laredo,  are  suggested  for  your 

consideration Should  you  attempt  to  exercise  the  right, 

which  the  United  States  have  in  common  with  Mexico,  to  the  free 
navigation  of  this  river,  it  is  probable  that  Mexico  would  interpose 
resistance.  You  will  not  attempt  to  enforce  this  right  without 
further  instructions It  is  not  designed,  in  our  present  re 
lations  with  Mexico,  that  you  should  treat  her  as  an  enemy ;  but, 
should  she  assume  that  character  by  a  declaration  of  war,  or  any 
open  act  of  hostility  towards  us,  you  will  not  act  merely  on  the 
defensive  if  your  relative  means  enable  you  to  do  otherwise." 

The  administration  was  therefore  of  opinion,  that  this  military 
occupation  of  the  territory  in  question  was  not  an  act  of  hostility, 
towards  Mexico,  or  treating  her  as  an  enemy.  Now,  I  do  aver, 
without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  whenever  a  .territory  claimed 
by  two  powers  is,  and  has  been  for  a  length  of  time  in  the  posses 
sion  of  one  of  them,  if  the  other  should  invade  and  take  possession 
of  it  by  a  military  force,  such  an  acljs  a»  ^p^a^cjt^ofjbpjtility 
according  to  the  acknowledged  and  practical  law  of  nations.  In 
this  case  the  law  of  nations  only  recognizes  a  clear  and  positive 
fact. 

The  sequel  is  well  known.  General  Taylor,  with  his  troops,  left 
Corpus  Christi,  March  8th__to  llth,  1846,  and  entered  the  desert 


14 

which  separates  that  place  from  the  vicinity  of  the  del  Norte. 
On  the  21st  he  was  encamped  three  miles  south  of  the  Arroyo,  or 
Little  Colorado,  having  by  the  route  he  took  marched  135  miles, 
and  being  nearly  north  of  Matamoras  about  thirty  miles  distant. 
He  had  on  the  19th  met  a  party  of  irregular  Mexican  cavalry, 
who  informed  him  that  they  had  peremptory  orders,  if  he  passed 
the  river,  to  fire  upon  his  troops,  and  that  it  would  be  considered 
a  declaration  of  war.  The  river  was  however  crossed  without  a 
single  shot  having  been  fired.  In  a  proclamation  issued  on  the 
12th,  General  Mejia,  who  commanded  the  forces  of  the  Depart 
ment  of  Tamaulipas,  asserts,  that  the  limits  of  Texas  are  certain 
and  recognized,  and  never  had  extended  beyond  the  river  Nueces, 
that  the  cabinet  of  the  United  States  coveted  the  regions  on  the 
left  bank  of  the  Rio  Bravo,  and  that  the  American  army  was  now 
advancing  to  take  possession  of  a  large  part  of  Tamaulipas.  On 
the  24th  March  General  Taylor  reached  a  point  on  the  route  from 
Matamoras  to  Point  Isabel,  eighteen  miles  from  the  former,  and 
ten  from  the  latter  place,  where  a  deputation  sent  him  a  formal 
Protest  of  the  Prefect  of  the  Northern  District  of  the  Department 
of  Tamaulipas,  declaring,  in  behalf  of  the  citizens  of  the  district, 
that  they  never  will  consent  to  separate  themselves  from  the  Mex 
ican  Republic,  and  to  unite  themselves  with  the  United  States. 
On  the  12th  of  April,  the  Mexican  General,  Ampudia,  required 
General  Taylor  to  break  up  his  camp  within  twenty-four  hours, 
and  to  retire  to  the  other  bank  of  the  Nueces  river,  and  notified 
him  that,  if  he  insisted  in  remaining  upon  the  soil  of  the  Depart 
ment  of  Tamaulipas,  it  would  clearly  result  that  arms  alone  must 
decide  the  question  ;  in  which  case,  he  declared  that  the  Mexicans 
would  accept  the  war  to  which  they  had  been  provoked.  On  the 
24th  of  April,  General  Arista  arrived  in  Matamoras,  and  on  the 
same  day,  informed  General  Taylor,  that  he  considered  hostilities 
commenced,  and  would  prosecute  them.  On  the  same  day,  a 
party  of  sixty-three  American  dragoons,  who  had  been  sent  some 
distance  up  the  left  bank  of  the  river,  became  engaged  with  a  very 
large  force  of  the  enemy,  and  after  a  short  affair,  in  which  about 
sixteen  were  killed  or  wounded,  were  surrounded  and  compelled 
to  surrender.  These  facts  were  laid  before  Congress  by  the 
President  in  his  message,  of  the  llth  of  May. 


15 


V.— THE  CLAIM  OF  TEXAS  TO  THE  RIO  DEL 
NORTE,  AS  ITS  BOUNDARY,  EXAMINED. 

From  what  precedes  it  appears,  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  considered  the  refusal  of  Mexico  to  receive  a  resi 
dent  Envoy,  or  minister  as  a  sufficient  cause  for  war ;  and  the  Rio 
del  Norte  as  the  legitimate  boundary  of  Texas.  The  first  opinion 
is  now  of  no  importance  ;  but  the  question  of  boundary,  which 
was  the  immediate  cause  of  hostilities,  has  to  this  day  been  the 
greatest  impediment  to  the  restoration  of  peace.  I  feel  satisfied, 
that  if  this  was  settled,  there  would  be  no  insuperable  difficulty  in 
arranging  other  pretensions. 

The  United  States  claim  no  other  portion  of  the  Mexican  do 
minions,  unless  it  be  by  right  of  conquest.  The  tract  of  country 
between  the  RloJ^uecesj^  is  the  only  one,  which 

has  been  claimed  by  both  parties,  as  respectively  belonging  either 
to  Texas  or  to  Mexico.  As  regards  every  other  part  of  the  Mex 
ican  possessions,  the  United  States  never  had  claimed  any  portion 
of  it.  The  iniquity  of  acquiring  any  portion  of  it,  otherwise  than 
by  fair  compact  freely  consented  to  by  Mexico,  is  self-evident.  It 
is,  in  every  respect,  most  important  to  examine  the  grounds  on 
which  the  claim  of  the  United  States  to  the  only  territory  claimed 
by  both  nations  is  founded.  It  is  the  main  question  at  issue. 

The  Republic  of  Texas  did,  by  an  act  of  I^gember  1836,  de 
clare  the  Rio  del  Norte  to  be  its  boundary.  It  wiTTnot  feTseriously 
contended,  that  a  nation  has  a  right,  by  a  law  of  its  own,  to  deter 
mine  what  is  or  shall  be  the  boundary  between  it  and  another 
country.  The  act  was  nothing  more  than  the  expression  of 
the  wishes  or  pretensions  of  the  Government.  Its  only  practical 
effect  was  that,  emanating  from  its  Congress  or  legislative  body,  it 
made  it  imperative  on  the  Executive,  not  to  conclude  any  peace 
with  Mexico,  unless  that  boundary  was  agreed  to.  As  regards 
right,  the  act  of  Texas  is  a  perfect  nullity.  We  want  the  argu 
ments  and  documents  by  which  the  claim  is  sustained. 

On  a  first  view  the  pretension  is  truly  startling.  There  is  no 
exception :  the  Rio  Norte  from  its  source  to  its  mouth  is  declared 
to  be  the  rightful  boundary  of  Texas.  That  river  has  its  source 


16 

within  the  department,  province,  or  state  of  New  Mexico,  which 
it  traverses  through  its  whole  length  from  north  to  south,  dividing 
it  into  two  unequal  parts.  The  lai  gest  and  most  populous,  including 
Santa  Fe,  the  capital,  lies  on  the  left  bank  of  the  river,  and  is 
therefore  embraced  within  the  claim  of  Texas.  Now  this  prov 
ince  of  New  Mexico  was  first  visited  and  occupied  by  the  Spaniards 
under  Vasquez  Coronado,  in  the  years  1540  to  1542.  It  was  at 
that  time  voluntarily  evacuated,  subsequently  re-visited,  and  some 
settlements  made  about  the  year  1583:  finally  conquered  in  1595 
by  the  Spaniards,  under  the  command  of  Onate.  An  insurrection 
of  the  Indians  drove  away  the  Spaniards  in  the  year  1680.  They 
re-entered  it  the  ensuing  year,  and  after  a  long  resistance  re-con 
quered  it.  This  was  an  internal  conflict  with  the  Aborigines ;  but 
as  related  to  foreign  powers,  the  sovereignty  of  the  Spaniards  over 
the  territory  was  never  called  in  question  ;  and  it  was,  in  express 
terms,  made  the  western  boundary  of  Louisiana  in  the  Royal 
Charter  of  the  French  Government. 

The  conquest  of  the  province  by  Onate,  took  place  five-and- 
twenty  years  prior  to  the  landing  of  the  Pilgrims  in  New  England, 
and  twelve  years  before  any  permanent  settlement  had  been  made 
in  North  America,  on  the  shores  of  the  Atlantic,  by  either  Eng 
land,  France,  Holland,  Sweden,  or  any  other  power,  but  that  in 
Florida  by  Spain  herself. 

I  have  in  vain  sought  for  any  document,  emanating  from  the 
Republic  or  State  of  Texas,  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  its  claim 
either  to  New  Mexico  or  to  the  country  bordering  on  the  lower 
portion  of  the  del  Norte.  The  only  official  papers  within  my 
reach,  in  which  the  claim  of  Texas  is  sustained,  are  the  President's 
messages  of  May  11  and  Dec.  3rd,  1846 ;  and  these  refer  only  to 
the  country  bordering  on  the  lower  part  of  the  del  Norte.  The 
portion  of  the  message  of  May  llth,  1846,  relating  to  that  subject, 
is  as  follows :  "  Meantime  Texas,  by  the  final  action  of  our  Con 
gress,  had  become  an  integral  part  of  our  Union.  The  Congress 
of  Texas,  by  its  act  of  December  19,  1836,  had  declared  the  Rio 
del  Norte  to  be  the  boundary  of  that  republic.  Its  jurisdiction  had 
been  extended  and  exercised  beyond  the  Nueces.  The  country 
between  that  river  and  the  del  Norte  had  been  represented  in  the 
Congress  and  in  the  Convention  of  Texas ;  had  thus  taken  part  in 
the  act  of  annexation  itself;  and  is  now  included  within  one  of 
our  congressional  districts.  Our  own  Congress  had,  moreover, 


17 

with  great  unanimity,  by  the  act  appro veJ  December  31,  1845, 
recognized  the  country  beyond  the  Nueces  as  a  part  of  our  terri 
tory,  by  including  it  within  our  own  revenue  system  ;  and  a  rev 
enue  officer,  to  reside  within  that  district,  has  been  appointed,  by 
and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  It  became,  there 
fore,  of  urgent  necessity  to  provide  for  the  defence  of  that  portion 
of  our  country.  Accordingly,  on  the  13th  of  January  last,  instruc 
tions  were  issued  to  the  general  in  command  of  these  troops  to 
occupy  the  left  bank  of  the  del  Norte 

The  movement  of  the  troops  to  the  del  Norte  was  made  by  the 
commanding  general,  under  positive  instructions  to  abstain  from 
all  aggressive  acts  towards  Mexico  or  Mexican  citizens,  and  to  re 
gard  the  relations  between  that  Republic  and  the  United  States  as 
peaceful,  unless  she  should  declare  war,  or  commit  acts  of  hostility 
indicative  of  a  state  of  war.  He  was  specially  directed  to  protect 
private  property,  and  respect  personal  rights." 

In  his  annual  message  of  jDejcemlgrJtJlS^B,  the  President  states 
that  Texas,  as  ceded  to  the  United  States  by  France  in  1803,  has 
been  always  claimed  as  extending  west  to  the  Rio  Grande ;  that 
this  fact  is  established  by  declarations  of  our  Government  during 
Mr.  Jefferson's  and  Mr.  Monroe's  administrations ;  and  that  the 
Texas  which  was  ceded  to  Spain  by  the  Florida  treaty  of  1819, 
embraced  all  the  country  now  claimed  by  the  State  of  Texas  be 
tween  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande. 

He  then  repeats  the  Acts  of  Texas  with  reference  to  their  boun 
daries  ;  stating  that  "  during  a  period  of  more  than  nine  years, 
which  intervened  between  the  adoption  of  her  constitution  and 
her  annexation  as  one  of  the  States  of  our  Union,  Texas  asserted 
and  exercised  many  acts  of  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction  over  the 
territory  and  inhabitants  west  of  the  Nueces ;  such  as  organizing 
and  defining  limits  of  counties  extending  to  the  Rio  Grande ;  es 
tablishing  courts  of  justice,  and  extending  her  judicial  system  over 
the  territory ;  establishing  also  a  custom-house,  post-offices,  a  land- 
office,  &c." 

The  President  designates  by  the  name  of  Texas,  the  cession  of 
Louisiana  by  France  to  the  United  States;  and  he  again  calls  the 
territory  ceded  to  Spain  by  the  Florida  treaty  of  1819,  the  Texas, 
He  intimates  that  the  claim  of  the  United  States  to  the  territory 
between  the  Sabine  and  the  Rio  Norte,  was  derived  from  the 
boundaries  of  Texas,  and  that  by  claiming  as  far  west  as  this  river. 


18 

the  United  States  did  recognize  that  it  was  the  boundary  of  the 
Texas.    I  really  do  not  understand  what  is  meant  by  this  assertion. 

The  United  States  claimed  the  Rio  Norte  as  being  the  legitimate 
boundary  of  Louisiana,  and  not  of  Texas.  Neither  they  nor  France 
had  ever  .been  in  possession  of  the  country  beyond  the  Sabine. 
Spain  had  always  held  possession,  and  had  divided  the  territory 
into  provinces  as  she  pleased.  One  of  these  was  called  Texas,  and 
its  boundaries  had  been  designated  and  altered  at  her  will.  With 
these  the  United  States  had  no  concern.  If  their  claim  could  be 
sustained,  it  must  be  by  proving  that  Louisiana  extended  of  right 
thus  far.  This  had  no  connection  with  the  boundaries  which 
Spain  might  have  assigned  to  her  province  of  Texas.  These 
might  have  extended  beyond  the  Rio  del  Norte,  or  have  been  east 
of  the  Rio  Nueces.  There  is  not  the  slightest  connection  between 
the  legitimate  boundaries  of  Louisiana,  and  those  of  the  Spanish 
province  of  Texas.  The  presumed  identity  is  a  mere  supposition. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  the  soundness  of  the  pretensions 
to  the  Rio  Norte,  asserted  by  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr.  Monroe,  since 
they  were  yielded  in  exchange  of  Florida  and  some  other  objects 
by  the  treaty  of  1819  ;  a  treaty  extremely  popular  at  the  time,  and 
the  execution  of  which  was  pressed  with  great  zeal  and  perseve 
rance. 

Whenever  ultimately  ceded  to  Mexico,  that  republic  fixed  its 
boundaries  as  it  thought  proper.  Texas  and  Cohahuila  were  de 
clared  to  form  a  state ;  andjhe  Rio  Nueces  was  made  the  boun 
dary  of  Texas.  When  Texas  declared  itself  independent,  it  was 
the  insurrection  of  only  part  of  a  state  ;  for  Cohahuila  remained 
united  to  Mexico.  But  the  Rio  Nueces  was  the  boundary  be 
tween  the  department  of  Texas  and  the  state  of  Tamaulipas.  The 
whole  contested  territory  lies  within  the  limits  of  Tamaulipas, 
J  which  never  was,  under  the  Mexican  Government,  connected  in 
any  shape  with  Texas. 

The  question  now  under  consideration  is  only  that  between  the 
United  States  and  Mexico ;  and  in  that  view  of  the  subject,  it  is 
quite  immaterial  whether  the  acts  of  the  United  States  emanated 
from  Congress,  or  from  the  Executive.  No  act  of  either,  recog 
nizing  the  country  beyond  the  Nueces,  as  a  part  of  the  territory 
of  the  United  States,  can  be  alleged  against  Mexico,  as  a  proof  of 
their  right  to  the  country  thus  claimed.  Any  such  act  is  only  an 
assertion,  a  declaration,  but  not  an  argument  sustaining  the  right. 


19 

It  is,  however,  proper  to  observe  here,  that  the  port  of  delivery 
west  of  the  Nueces,  erected  by  the  act  of  Congress  "  To  establish  a 
collection  district  in  the  state  of  Texas,"  was  at  Corpus  Christi,  a 
place  which  was  in  the  actual  possession  of  that  state. 

It  must  also  be  premised  that,  in  the  joint  resolution  for  the  an 
nexation  of  Texas,  the  question  of  the  boundary  between  it  and 
Mexico  was  expressly  reserved,  as  one  which  should  be  settled  by 
treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico. 

The  only  arguments  in  the  President's  message,  which  sustain 
the  right  of  Texas  to  territory  beyond  the  Nueces,  are  contained 
in  those  passages,  in  which  it  is  asserted,  that  the  jurisdiction  of 
Texas  had  been  extended  and  exercised  beyond  the  Nueces :  that 
the  country  between  that  river  and  the  del  Norte  had  been  repre 
sented  in  the  Congress  and  Convention  of  Texas,  had  taken  part 
in  the  annexation  itself,  and  was  now  included  within  one  of  our 
congressional  districts. 

But  it  is  not  stated  in  the  President's  message,  how  far  beyond 
the  Nueces,  the  jurisdiction  of  Texas  had  been  extended,  nor 
what  part  of  the  country  between  that  river  and  the  del  Norte 
had  been  represented  in  the  Congress  and  convention  of  Texas, 
and  was  then  included  within  one  of  our  congressional  districts. 

Now  the  actual  jurisdiction  beyond  the  Nueces  never  extended 
farther  than  the  adjacent  settlement  of  San  Patricio,  consisting  of 
about  twenty  families.  That  small  district,  though  beyond  the 
Nueces,  was  contiguous  to,  and  in  the  actual  possession  of  Texas. 
On  this  account  it  might  be  rightfully  included  within  the  limits, 
which  we  were  bound  to  protect  against  Mexican  invasion. 

But  what  was  the  country  between  this  small  settlement  of  San 
Patricio,  or  between  Corpus  Christi  and  the  Rio  del  Norte,  over 
which  it  might  be  supposed  from  the  message,  that  the  jurisdiction 
of  Texas  had  been  extended  ;  so  as  to  be  included  within  one  of 
our  congressional  districts  ?  Here  again,  Texas  had  erected  that 
small  settlement  into  a  county  called  San  Patricio,  and  declared 
that  this  county  extended  to  the  Rio  del  Norte.  This,  like  all 
other  declaratory  acts  of  the  same  kind,  was  only  an  assertion  not 
affecting  the  question  of  right.  The  State  of  Texas  might,  with 
equal  propriety,  have  declared  that  their  boundary  extended  to  the 
Sierra  Madre  or  to  the  Pacific.  The  true  question  of  right  to 
any  territory  beyond  the  Mexican  limits  of  the  Department  of 
Texas  depends  on  the  facts :  By  whom  was  the  territory  in 


20 

question  actually  inhabited  and  occupied  ?  and  had  the  inhabitants 
united  with  Texas  in  the  insurrection  against  Mexico  ? 

The  whole  country  beyond  the  settlement  of  San  Patricio  and 
Corpus  Christi,  till  within  a  few  miles  of  the  del  Norte,  is  a  per 
fect  desert,  one  hundred  and  sixty  miles  wide  by  the  route  pursued 
by  General  Taylor,  as  stated  by  himself,  and  near  one  hundred 
and  twenty  miles  in  a  straight  line. 

The  only  settled  part  of  it  is  along  the  left  bank  of  the  del 
Norte,  and  but  a  few  miles  in  breadth.  This  belt  was  settled,  in 
habited,  and  occupied  exclusively  by  Mexicans.  It  included  the 
town  of  J^rejdo  ;  and  Mexico  had  a  custom-house  at  Brazos,  north 
of  the  mouth  of  the  river.  Till  occupied  by  the  American  arms 
it  had  ever  been,  and  was  at  the  time  when  invaded  by  General 
Taylor,  a  part  of  the  Department  of  Tamaulipas,  and  subject  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Prefect  of  the  Northern  District  of  that 
department. 

In  the  course  of  the  war  between  Mexico  and  Texas,  incursions 
had  been  occasionally  made  by  each  party  into  the  territories  of  the 
other.  A  Mexican  officer  had,  once  or  twice,  obtained  temporary 
occupation  of  San  Antonio,  within  the  limits  of  Texas  ;  and  the 
Texans  had  on  one  occasion  taken  Loredo  itself,  and  more  than 
once  had  carried  their  arms,  not  only  to  the  left  bank  of  the  del 
Nprte,  but  even  beyond  that  river.  In  both  cases  the  aggressive 
parties  had  been  repulsed  and  expelled.  The  last  Texan  ex 
pedition  of  that  kind  took  place  in  December,  1842,  and  termi 
nated  in  their  defeat  at  Mier. 

That  the  country,  adjacent  to  the  left  bank  of  the  river,  was  ex 
clusively  in  the  possession  of  the  Mexicans,  was  well  known  to  our 
Government. 

When  General  Taylor  marched  to  the  del  Norte,  he  issued  an 
order  (No.  30),  translated  into  the  Spanish,  ordering  all  under  his 
command,  to  observe  with  the  most  scrupulous  respect  the  rights 
of  all  the  inhabitants,  \vho  might  be  found  in  peaceful  prosecution 
of  their  respective  occupations,  as  well  on  the  left  as  on  the  right 
side  of  the  Rio  Grande.  No  interference,  he  adds,  will  be  allowed 
with  the  civil  rights  or  religious  privileges  of  the  inhabitants. 

In  June,  1845,  General  Taylor  had  been  directed  to  select  and 
occupy,  on  or  near  the  Rio  Grande  del  Norte,  such  a  site  as  would 
be  best  adapted  to  repel  invasion  and  to  protect  our  Western  bor- 


21 

der.  But  on  the  8th  of  July  following,  the  Secretary  of  War  (Mr. 
Marcy)  addressed  the  following  letter  to  him. 

"  This  Department  is  informed  that  Mexico  has  some  military 
establishments  on  the  East  side  of  the  Rio  Grande,  which  are,  and 
for  some  time  have  been,  in  the  actual  occupancy  of  her  troops. 
In  carrying  out  the  instructions  heretofore  received,  you  will  be 
careful  to  avoid  any  acts  of  aggression,  unless  an  actual  state  of 
war  should  exist.  The  Mexican  forces  at  the  posts  in  their  pos 
session,  and  which  have  been  so,  will  not  be  disturbed  as  long  as 
the  relations  of  peace  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico  con 
tinue." 

On  the  30th  July,  1845,  the  Secretary  again  addresses  Gen. 
Taylor  as  follows  :  "  You  are  expected  to  occupy,  protect  and  de 
fend  the  territory  of  Texas,  to  the  extent  that  it  has  been  occupied 
by  the  people  of  Texas.  The  Rio  Grande  is  claimed  to  be  the 
boundary  between  the  two  countries,  and  up  to  this  boundary  you 
are  to  extend  your  protection,  only  excepting  any  posts  on  the 
Eastern  side  thereof,  which  are  in  the  actual  occupancy  of  Mexi 
can  forces,  or  Mexican  settlements,  over  which  the  Republic  of 
Texas  did  not  exercise  jurisdiction  at  the  period  of  annexation,  or 
shortly  before  that  event.  It  is  expected,  in  selecting  the  estab 
lishment  for  your  troops,  you  will  approach  as  near  the  boundary 
line,  the  Rio  Grande,  as  prudence  will  dictate.  With  this  view, 
the  President  desires  that  your  position,  for  a  part  of  your  forces  at 
least,  should  be  west  of  the  River  Nueces." 

The  Mexican  settlements,  thus  excepted,  are  not  those  over  which 
Texas  did  not  claim  jurisdiction,  but  those  on  the  East  bank  of  the 
Rio  Grande,  over  which  Texas  did  not  exercise  jurisdiction  at  the 
period  mentioned.  The  President  had  no  authority  to  give  up  the 
boundary  claimed  by  Texas  ;  but  it  is  clear  that  at  that  time,  when 
war  was  not  contemplated,  the  Administration  was  of  opinion  that, 
till  the  question  was  definitively  settled,  the  occupancy  by  the 
Mexicans  of  the  territory  adjacent  the  left  bank  of  the  del  Norte 
ought  not  to  be  disturbed.  Neither  the  subsequent  refusal  by 
Mexico  to  receive  a  residing  Envoy,  nor  the  successes  of  the  Amer 
ican  arms  have  affected  the  question  of  right.  The  claim  of  Texas, 
whether  to  New  Mexico,  or  to  the  lower  portion  of  the  Rio  Norte, 
was  identically  the  same,  as  invalid  and  groundless  in  one  case  as 
in  the  other.  Why  a  distinction  has  been  made  by  the  Executive 
has  not  been  stated.  The  fact  is  that  he  has  established  a  tempo- 


22 

rary  government  for  New  Mexico,  as  a  country  conquered,  and 
without  any  regard  to  the  claim  of  Texas ;  whilst,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  has  permitted  that  State  to  extend  its  jurisdiction  over 
the  country  lying  on  the  left  bank  of  the  del  Norte,  which,  like 
New  Mexico,  had  been  conquered  by  the  arms  of  the  United 
States.  Not  a  shadow  of  proof  has  been  adduced  to  sustain  the 
pretensions  of  Texas  to  that  district ;  and  justice  imperiously  re 
quires  that  it  should  by  the  treaty  of  peace  be  restored  to  Mexico. 

It  so  happens  that  the  boundary,  which  may  be  traced  in  con 
formity  with  this  principle,  is  a  natural  one,  and  that,  as  a  measure 
of  expediency,  none  more  eligible  could  have  been  devised.  A 
desert  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  miles  separate*  the  most  South 
westerly  ..Texan,  settlements  of  Corpus  Christi  and  San  Patricio, 
from  those  of  the  Mexicans,  on  the  left  bank  of  the  del  Norte, 
than  which  no  boundary  could  be  devised,  better  calculated  to  pre 
vent  collisions  hereafter  between  the  two  nations.  It  will  be  suf 
ficient,  for  that  purpose,  to  draw  a  nominal  line  through  the  desert, 
leaving  all  the  waters  that  empty  into  the  Rio  Norte  to  Mexico, 
and  all  those  that  empty  into  the  Rio  Nueces  to  Texas,  together 
with  such  other  provisions,  respecting  fortifications  and  military 
posts,  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  peace. 

The  line  of  the  Rio  Norte  is  one,  from  which  Mexico  would  be 
perpetually  threatened,  and  from  which  their  adjacent  town  on  the 
eastern  bank  may  be  bombarded.  Such  an  intolerable  nuisance 
would  perpetuate  most  hostile  feelings.  With  such  a  narrow  river 
as  the  Rio  del  Norte,  arid  with  a  joint  right  of  navigation,  repeated 
collisions  would  be  unavoidable. 

Among  these,  when  there  was  nothing  but  a  fordable  river  to 
cross,  slaves  would  perpetually  escape  from  Texas  :  and  where 
would  be  the  remedy  ?  Are  the  United  States  prepared  to  impose 
by  a  treaty  on  Mexico,  where  slavery  is  unknown,  the  obligation  to 
surrender  fugitive  slaves  ? 

"X  Mexico  is  greatly  the  weaker  power,  and  requires  a  boundary, 
which  will  give  her  as  much  security  as  is  practicable.  It  is  not 
required,  either  for  the  preservation  of  peace,  or  for  any  other  le 
gitimate  purpose,  that  the  United  States  should  occupy  a  threat 
ening  position.  It  cannot  be  rationally  supposed,  that  Mexico  will 
ever  make  an  aggressive  war  against  them  ;  and  even  in  such 
case,  the  desert  would  protect  them  against  an  invasion.  If  a  war 
should  ever  again  take  place  between  the  two  countries,  the  over- 


23 

whelming  superiority  of  the  Navy  of  the  United  States  will  enable 
them  to  carry  on  their  operations  wherever  they  please.  They 
would,  within  a  month,  re-occupy  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Norte, 
and  within  a  short  time,  effect  a  landing  and  carry  the  war  to  any 
quarter  they  pleased. 

Must  the  war  be  still  prosecuted  for  an  object  of  no  intrinsic 
value,  to  which  the  United  States  have  no  legitimate  right,  which 
justice  requires  them  to  yield,  and  which  even  expediency  does 
not  require  ? 


VI.— RECAPITULATION. 

It  is  an  indisputable  fact,  that  the  annexation  of  Texas,  then  at 
war  with  Mexico,  was  tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  war,  and 
that  the  comparative  weakness  of  Mexico  alone  prevented  its 
Government  from  considering  it  as  such. 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  was  evidently  the  duty  of  the 
United  States  to  use  every  means  to  soothe  and  conciliate  the 
Mexicans,  and  to  wait  with  patience  for  an  unconditional  recogni 
tion  of  the  independence  of  Texas,  till  the  feelings  excited  by  our 
aggression  had  subsided. 

It  has  been  shown  that  after  Mexico  had  resorted,  as  a  substitute 
for  war,  to  the  harmless  suspension  of  the  ordinary  diplomatic  in 
tercourse,  the  attempt  to  make  it  retract  that  measure,  before  any 
negotiations  for  the  restoration  of  harmony  between  the  two  coun 
tries  should  be  entered  into,  was  neither  countenanced  by  the  ac 
knowledged  law  of  nations,  nor  necessary  for  any  useful  purpose, 
nor  consistent  with  a  proper  and  just  sense  of  the  relative  position 
in  which  the  aggressive  measure  of  the  United  States  had  placed 
the  two  countries.  £But  that  the  refusal  of  Mexico  to  submit  to 
that  additional  contumely,  should  have  been  considered  as  an  insult 
to  the  United  States,  betrays  the  pride  of  power,  rather  than  a  just 
sense  of  what  is  due  to  the  true  dignity  and  honor  of  this  nation^ 

It  has  been  demonstrated,  that  the  republic  of  Texas  had  not  a 
shadow  of  right  to  the  territory  adjacent  to  the  left  bank  of  the 
lower  portion  of  the  Rio  Norte ;  that  though  she  claimed,  she  never 
had  actually  exercised  jurisdiction  over  any  portion  of  it ;  that  the 
Mexicans  were  the  sole  inhabitants,  and  in  actual  possession  of  that 


24 

district ;  that  therefore  its  forcible  occupation  by  the  army  of  the 
United  States  was,  according  to  the  acknowledged  law  of  nations, 
as  well  as  in  fact,  aiL a^LaJLopen  hostility  and  war:  that  the  re 
sistance  of  the  Mexicans  to  that  invasion  was  legitimate ;  and  that 
therefore  the  war  was  unprovoked  by  them,  and  commenced  by 
the  United  States. 

If  any  doubt  should  remain  of  the  correctness  of  these  state 
ments,  let  them  be  tested  by  the  divine  and  undeniable  precept, 
"  Do  unto  others  as  you  would  be  done  by." 

If  at  this  moment  France  was  to  contract  a  treaty  of  defensive 
and  offensive  alliance  with  Mexico,  a  treaty  taking  effect  imme 
diately,  and  pending  the  war  between  the  United'  States  and 
Mexico,  and  binding  herself  to  defend  it  with  all  her  forces  against 
any  and  every  other  Power,  would  not  the  United  States  at  once 
consider  such  a  treaty  as  a  declaration  of  war  against  them  ? 

If,  in  lieu  of  declaring  war  against  Great  Britain,  in  the  year 
1812,  the  United  States  had  only  suspended  the  ordinary  diplomatic 
relations  between  the  two  countries ;  and  Great  Britain  had  de 
clared  that  she  would  not  enter  into  any  negotiation  for  the  settle 
ment  of  all  the  subjects  of  difference  between  the  two  countries, 
unless  the  United  States  should,  as  a  preliminary  condition,  restore 
those  relations ;  would  not  this  have  been  considered  as  a  most  in 
solent  demand,  and  to  which  the  United  States  never  would  submit  ? 

If  the  United  States  were,  and  had  been  for  more  than  a  century, 
in  possession  of  a  tract  of  country,  exclusively  inhabited  and  gov 
erned  by  them,  disturbed  only  by  the  occasional  forays  of  an  en 
emy  ;  would  they  not  consider  the  forcible  military  invasion  and 
occupation  of  such  a  district  by  a  third  Power,  as  open  and  un 
provoked  war,  commenced  against  them  ?  And  could  their  resist 
ance  to  the  invasion  render  them  liable  to  the  imputation  of  having 
themselves  commenced  the  war  ? 

Yet  it  would  seem  as  if  the  splendid  and  almost  romantic  suc 
cesses  of  the  American  arms  had,  for  a  while,  made  the  people  of 
the  United  States  deaf  to  any  other  consideration  than  an  enthu 
siastic  and  exclusive  love  of  military  glory;  as  if,  forgetting  the 
Origin  of  the_war,  and  with  an  entire  disregard  for  the  dictates  of 
justice,  Ihey  thought  that  those  successes  gave  the  nation  a  right 
A/to  dismember  Mexico,  arid  to  appropriate  to  themselves  that  which 
did  not  belong  to  them. 

But  I  do  not  despair,  for  I  have  faith  in  our  institutions  and  in 


25 

the  people  ;  and  I  will  now  ask  them  whether  this  was  their  mis 
sion  ?  and  whether  they  were  placed  by  Providence  on  this  conti 
nent  for  the  purpose  of  nultiv^jlng  falsa  glojyrand  of  sinking  to 
he  level  of  those  vulgar  conquerors  who  have  at  all  times  deso 
lated  the  earth. 


VII.— THE  MISSION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  have  been  placed  by  Emvidence 
in  a  position  never  before  enjoyed  by  any  other  nation.  They  are 
possessed  of  a  most  extensive  territory,  with  a  very  fertile  soil,  a 
variety  of  climates  and  productions,  and  a  capacity  of  sustaining 
a  population  greater,  in  proportion  to  its  extent,  than  any  other 
territory  of  the  same  size  on  the  face  of  the  globe. 

By  a  concourse  of  various  circumstances,  they  found  themselves, 
at  the  epoch  of  their  independence,  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  relig 
ious,  civil,  and  political  liberty,  entirely  free  from  any  hereditary 
monopoly  of  wealth  or  power.  The  people  at  large  were  in  full 
and  quiet  possession  of  all  those  natural  rights,  for  which  the  peo 
ple  of  other  countries  have  for  a  long  time  contended,  and  still  do 
contend.  They  were,  and  you  still  are  the  supreme  sovereigns, 
acknowledged  as  such  by  all.  For  the  proper  exercise  of  these  un 
controlled  powers  and  privileges,  you  are  responsible  to  posterity, 
to  the  world  at  large,  and  to  the  Almighty  Being  who  has  poured 
on  you  such  unparalleled  blessings. 

Youjrjriission  is,  to  improve  the  state  of  the  world,  to  be  the 
"  Model  Republic,"  to  show  that  men  are  capable  of  governing 
themselves,  and  that  this  simple  and  natural  form  of  government  is 
that  also  which  confers  most  happiness  on  all,  is  productive  of  the 
greatest  development  of  the  intellectual  faculties,  above  all,  that 
which  is  attended  with  the  highest  standard  of  private  and*  political 
virtue  and  morality. 

Your  forefathers,  the  founders  of  the  Republic,  imbued  with  a 
deep  feeling  of  their  rights  and  duties,  did  not  deviate  from  those 
principles.  The  sound  sense,  the  wisdom,  the  probity,  the  respect 
for  public  faith,  with  which  the  internal  concerns  of  the  nation 
were  managed,  made  our  institutions  an  object  of  general  admira 
tion.  Here,  for  the  first  time,  was  the  experiment  attempted  with 

4 


26 

any  prospect  of  success,  and  on  a  large  scale,  of  a  Representative 
Democratic  Republic.  If  it  failed,  the  last  hope  of  the  friends  of 
mankind  was  lost  or  indefinitely  postponed  ;  and  the  eyes  of  the 
world  were  turned  towards  you.  Whenever  real,  or  pretended  ap 
prehensions  of  the  imminent  danger  of  trusting  the  people  at  large 
with  power,  were  expressed,  the  answer  ever  was,  "  Look  at  Amer 
ica!" 

In  their  external  relations  the  United  States,  before  this  unfor 
tunate  war,  had,  whilst  sustaining  their  just  rights,  ever  acted  in 
strict  conformity  with  the  dictates  of  justice,  and  displayed  the  ut 
most  moderation.  They  never  had  voluntarily  injured  any  other 
nation.  Every  acquisition  of  territory  from  Foreign  Powers  was 
honestly  made,  the  result  of  Treaties,  not  imposed,  but  freely  as 
sented  to  by  the  other  party.  The  preservation  of  peace  was  ever 
a  primary  object.  The  recourse  to  arms  was  always  in  self  defence. 
On  its  expediency  there  may  have  been  a  difference  of  opinion  ; 
that,  in  the  only  two  instances  of  conflict  with  civilized  nations 
which  occurred  during  a  period  of  sixty  three  years,  (1783  to  1846), 
the  just  rights  of  the  United  States  had  been  invaded  by  a  long  con 
tinued  series  of  aggressions,  is  undeniable.  In  the  first  instance, 
war  was  not  declared  ;  and  there  were  only  partial  hostilities  be 
tween  France  and  England.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
the  only  legitimate  organ  of  the  nation  for  that  purpose,  did,  in 
1812,  declare  war  against  Great  Britain.  Independent  of  depreda 
tions  on  our  commerce,  she  had,  for  twenty  years,  carried  on  an 
actual  war  against  the  United  States.  I  say,  actual  war,  since 
there  is  now  but  one  opinion  on  that  subject ;  a  renewal  of  the 
impressment  of  men  sailing  under  the  protection  of  our  flag  would 
be  tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  war.  The  partial  opposition  to 
the  war  of  1812,  did  not  rest  on  a  denial  of  the  aggressions  of  Eng 
land  and  of  the  justice  of  our  cause,  but  on  the  fact  that,  with  the 
exception  of  impressments,  similar  infractions  of  our  just  rights  had 
been  committed  by  France,  and  on  the  most  erroneous  belief,  that 
the  administration  was  partial  to  that  country,  and  insincere  in 
their  apparent  efforts  to  restore  peace. 

At  present,  all  these  principles  would  seem  to  have  been  aban 
doned.  The  most  just,  a  purely  defensive  war,  and  no  other  is 
justifiable,  is  necessarily  attended  with  a  train  of  great  and  una 
voidable  evils.  What  shall  we  say  of  one,  iniquitous  in  its  origin, 


27 

and  provoked  by  ourselves,  of  a  war  of  aggression,  which  is  now 
publicly  avowed  to  be  one  of  intended  conquest. 

>  its  necessary  consequences  will  be,  a  permanent 


increase  of  our  military  establishment  and  of  executive  patronage  : 
its  general  tendency,  to  make  man  hate  man,  to  awaken  his  worst 
passions,  to  accustom  him  to  the  taste  of  blood.  It  has  already  de 
moralized  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  nation. 

The  general  peace,  which  has  been  preserved  between  the  great 
European  powers  during  the  last  thirty  years,  may  not  be  ascribed 
to  the  purest  motives.  Be  these  what  they  may,  this  long  and  un 
usual  repose  has  been  most  beneficial  to  the  cause  of  humanity. 
Nothing  can  be  more  injurious  to  it,  more  lamentable,  more  scan 
dalous,  than  the  war  between  two  adjacent  republics  of  North 
America. 

Your  mission  was,  to  be  a  model  for  all  other  governments  and 
for  all  other  less  favored  nations,  to  adhere  to  the  most  elevated 
principles  of  political  morality,  to  apply  all  your  faculties  to  the 
gradual  improvement  of  your  own  institutions  and  social  state, 
and,  by  your  example,  to  exert  a  moral  influence  most  beneficial 
to  mankind  at  large.  Instead  of  this,  an  appeal  has  been  made  to 
your  worst  passions  ;  to  cupidity,  to  the  thirst  of  unjust  aggrandize 
ment  by  brutal  force  ;  to  the  love  of  military  fame  and  of  false 
glory  ;  and  it  has  even  been  tried  to  pervert  the  noblest  feelings 
of  your  nature.  The  attempt  is  made  to  make  you  abandon  the 
lofty  position  which  your  fathers  occupied,  to  substitute  for  it  the 
political  morality  and  heathen  patriotism  of  the  heroes  and  states 
men  of  antiquity. 

I  have  said,  that  it  was  attempted  to  pervert  even  your  virtues. 
Devotedness  to  country,  or  patriotism,  is  a  most  essential  virtue, 
since  the  national  existence  of  any  society  depends  upon  it.  Un 
fortunately,  our  most  virtuous  dispositions  are  perverted,  not  only 
by  our  vices  and  selfishness,  but  also  by  their  own  excess.  Even 
the  most  holy  of  our  attributes,  the  religious  feeling,  may  be  per 
verted  from  that  cause,  as  was  but  too  lamentably  exhibited  in  the 
persecutions,  even  unto  death,  of  those  who  were  deemed  heretics. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  astonishing,  that  patriotism,  carried  to  excess, 
should  also  be  perverted.  In  the  entire  devotedness  to  their  coun 
try,  the  people,  everywhere  and  at  all  times,  have  been  too  apt  to 
forget  the  duties  imposed  upon  them  by  justice  towards  other  na- 


28 

tions.  It  is  against  this  natural  propensity  that  you  should  be 
specially  on  your  guard.  The  blame  does  not  attach  to  those  who, 
led  by  their  patriotic  feelings,  though  erroneous,  flock  around  the 
national  standard.  On  the  contrary,  no  men  are  more  worthy  of 
admiration,  better  entitled  to  the  thanks  of  their  country,  than 
those  who,  after  war  has  once  taken  place,  actuated  only  by  the 
purest  motives,  daily  and  with  the  utmost  self-devotedness,  brave 
death  and  stake  their  own  lives  in  the  conflict  against  the  actual 
enemy.  I  must  confess,  that  I  do  not  extend  the  same  charity  to 
those  civilians,  who  coolly  and  deliberately  plunge  the_  country  into 
any  unjust  or  unnecessary  war. 

We  should  have  but  one  conscience :  and  most  happy  would  it 
be  for  mankind,  were  statesmen  and  politicians  only  as  honest,  in 
their  management  of  the  internal  or  external  national  concerns,  as 
they  are  in  private  life.  The  irreproachable  private  character  of 
the  President,  and  of  all  the  members  of  his  administration,  is 
known  and  respected.  There  is  not  one  of  them  who  would  not 
spurn  with  indignation  the  most  remote  hint  that,  on  similar  pre- 
„  tences  to  those  alleged  for  dismembering  Mexico,  he  might  be  cap 
able  of  an  attempt  to  oppropriate  to  himself  his  neighbor's  farm. 

In  the  total  absence  of  any  argument  that  can  justify  the  war  in 
which  we  are  now  involved,  resort  has  been  had  to  a  most  extra 
ordinary  assertion.  It  is  said,  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
have  an  hereditary  superiority  of  race  over  the  Mexicans,  which 
"'  gives  them  the  right  to  subjugate  and  keep  in  bondage  the  inferior 
nation.  This,  it  is  also  alleged,  will  be  the  means  of  enlightening 
the  degraded  Mexicans,  of  improving  their  social  state,  and  of  ulti 
mately  increasing  the  happiness  of  the  masses. 

Is  it  compatible  with  the  principle  of  Democracy,  which  rejects 
every  hereditary  claim  of  individuals,  to  admit  an  hereditary  supe- 
Viority  of  races  ?  You  very  properly  deny,  that  the  son  can,  in 
dependent  of  his  own  merit,  derive  any  right  or  privilege  what 
ever,  from  the  merit  or  any  other  social  superiority  of  his  father. 
Can  you  for  a  moment  suppose,  that  a  very  doubtful  descent  from 
men,  who  lived  one  thousand  years  ago,  has  transmitted  to  you  a 
superiority  over  your  fellow-men  ?  But  the  Anglo-Saxons  were 
inferior, la  the  Goths,  from  whom  the  Spaniards  claim  to  be  de 
scended  ;  and  they  were  in  no  respect  superior  to  the  Franks  and 
to  the  Burgundians.  It  is  not  to  their  Anglo-Saxon  descent,  but  to 
a  variety  of  causes,  among  which  the  subsequent  mixture  of 


29 

Frenchified  Normans,  Angevins  and  Gascons  must  not  be  forgot 
ten,  that  the  Eoglish^araJMeJ^  institutions. 
In  the  progressive  improvement  of  mankind,  much  more  has  been 
due  to  religious  and  political  institutions,  than  to  races.  When 
ever  the  European  nations,  which,  from  their  language,  are  pre 
sumed  to  belong  to  the  Latin  or  to  the  Sclavonian  race,  shall  have 
conquered  institutions  similar  to  those  of  England,  there  will  be  no 
trace  left  of  the  pretended  superiority  of  one  of  those  races  above 
the  other.  At  this  time,  the  claim  is  but  a  pretext  for  covering 
and  justifying  unjust  usurpation  and  unbounded  ambition. 

But  admitting,  with  respect  to  Mexico,  the  superiority  of  race, 
this  confers  no  superiority  of  rights.  Among  ourselves,  the  most 
ignorant,  the  most  inferior,  either  in  physical  or  mental  faculties,  is 
recognized  as  having  equal  rights,  and  he  has  an  equal  vote  with 
any  one,  however  superior  to  him  in  all  those  respects.  This  is 
founded  on  the  immutable  principle  that  no  one  man  is  born  with 
the  right  of  governing  another  man.  He  may,  indeed,  acquire  a 
moral  ;nfluence  over  others,  and  no  other  is  legitimate.  The  same 
principle  will  apply  to  nations.  However  superior  the  Anglo- 
American  race  may  be  to  that  of  Mexico,  this  gives  the  Americans 
no  right  to  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  the  inferior  race.  The 
people  of  the  United  States  may  rightfully,  and  will,  if  they  use 
the  proper  means,  exercise  a  most  beneficial  moral  influence  over 
the  Mexicans,  and  other  less  enlightened  nations  of  America.  Be 
yond  this  they  have  no  right  to  go. 

The  allegation  that  the  subjugation  of  Mexico  would  be  the 
means  of  enlightening  the  Mexicans,  of  improving  their  social 
state,  and  of  increasing  their  happiness,  is  but  the  shallow  attempt 
to  disguise  unbounded  cupidity  and  ambition.  Truth  never  was 
or  can  be  propagated  by  fire,  and  sword,  or  by  any  other  than 
purely  moral  means.  By  these,  and  by  these  alone,  the  Christian 
religion  was  propagated,  and  enabled,  in  less  than  three  hundred 
years,  to  conquer  idolatry.  During  the  whole  of  that  period, 
Christianity  was  tainted  by  no  other  blood  than  that  of  its  martyrs. 

The  duties  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  towards  other 
nations  are  obvious.  Never  losing  sight  of  the  divine  precept, 
o  to  others  as  you  would  be  done  by,"  they  have  only  to  con- 
suit  their  own  conscience.  For  our  benevolent  Creator  has  im 
planted  in  the  hearts  of  men  the  moral  sense  of  right  and  wrong, 


30 

and  that  sympathy  for  other  men,  the  evidences  of  which  are  of 
daily  occurrence. 

It  seems  unnecessary  to  add  anything  respecting  that  false  glory 
which,  from  habit  and  the  general  tenor  of  our  early  education,  we 
are  taught  to  admire.  The  task  has  already  been  repeatedly  per 
formed,  in  a  far  more  able  and  impressive  manner,  than  anything 
I  could  say  on  the  subject.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that,  at  this 
time,  neither  the. dignity  or  honor  of  the  nation  demand  a  further 
sacrifice  of  invaluable  lives,  or  even  of  money.  The  very  reverse 
is  the  case.  The  true  honor  and  dignity  of  the  nation  are  insepa 
rable  from  justice.  Pride  and  vanity  alone  demand  the  sacrifice. 
Chough  so  dearly  purchased,  the  astonishing  successes  of  the 
American  arms  have  at  least  put  it  in  the  power  of  the  United 
States  to  grant  any  terms  of  peace,  without  incurring  the  imputa 
tion  of  being  actuated  by  any  but  the  most  elevated  motives.  It 
would  seem  that  the  most  proud  and  vain  must  be  satiated  with 
glory,  and  that  the  most  reckless  and  bellicose  should  be  sufficiently 
glutted  with  human  gore. 

A  more  truly  glorious  termination  of  the  war,  a  mor  splendid 
spectacle,  an  example  more  highly  useful  to  mankind  at  large,  can 
not  well  be  conceived,  than  that  of  the  victorious  forces  of  the 
United  States  voluntarily  abandoning  all  their  conquests,  without 
requiring  anything  else  than  that  which  was  strictly  due  to  our 
citizens. 


VIII.— TERMS   OF   PEACE. 


I  have  said  that  the  unfounded  claim  of  Texas  to  the  territory 
between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  Norte,  was  the  greatest  impedi 
ment  to  peace.  Of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt.  For  if,  relinquish 
ing  the  spirit  of  military  conquest,  nothing  shall  be  required  but 
the  indemnities  due  to  our  citizens,  the  United  States  have  only  to 
accept  the  terms  which  have  been  offered  by  the  Mexican  Govern 
ment.  It  consents  to  yield  a  territory  five  degrees  of  latitude,  or 
near  350  miles  in  breadth,  and  extending  from  New  Mexico  to  the 
Pacific.  Although  the  greater  part  of  this  is  quite  worthless,  yet 
the  portion  of  California  lying  between  the  Sierra  Neveda  and  the 
Pacific,  and  including  the  port  of  San  Francisco,  is  certainly  worth 


31 

much  more  than  the  amount  of  indemnities  justly  due  to  our  citi 
zens.  It  is  only  in  order  to  satisfy  those  claims,  that  an  accession 
of  territory  may  become  necessary. 

It  is  not  believed  that  the  Executive  will  favor  the  wild  sugges 
tions  of  a  subjugation,  or  annexation  of  the  whole  of  Mexico,  or 
of. any  of  its  interior  provinces.  And,  if  I  understand  the  terms 
offered  by  Mr.  Trist,  there  was  no  intention  to  include  within 
the  cessions  required,  the  Province  of  New  Mexico.  But  the  de 
mand  of  both  Old  and  New  California,  or  of  a  sea-coast  of  more 
than  thirteen  hundred  miles  in  length  (lat.  23°  to  42°),  is  extrava 
gant  and  unnecessary.  The  Peninsula  is  altogether  worthless, 
and  there  is  nothing  worth  contending  for  South  of  San  Diego,  or 
about  lat.  32°. 

In  saying  that,  if  aaaquest  is  not  the  object  of  the  war,  and  if 
the  pretended  claim  of  Texas  to  the  Rio  del  Norte  shall  be  aban 
doned,  there  cannot  be  any  insuperable  obstacle  to  the  restoration 
of  peace,  it  is  by  no  means  intended  to  assert  that  the  terms  here 
tofore  proposed  by  either  party  are  at  this  time  proper.  And  I 
apprehend  that  the  different  views  of  the  subject  entertained  by 
those  who  sincerely  desire  a  speedy  and  just  peace,  may  create 
some  difficulty.  There  are  some  important  considerations  which 
may  become  the  subject  of  subsequent  arrangements.  For  the 
present,  nothing  more  is  strictly  required  than  to  adopt  the  prin 
ciple  of  status  ante  helium,  or,  in  other  words,  to  evacuate  the 
Mexican  territory,  and  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  the  indem 
nities  due  to  our  citizens.  The  scruples  of  those  who  object  to 
any  cession  whatever  of  territory,  except  on  terms  unacceptable 
to  the  Southern  States,  might  be  removed  by  a  provision,  that 
would  only  pledge  a  territory  sufficient  for  the  purpose,  and  leave 
it  in  the  possession  of  the  United  States  until  the  indemnities  had 
been  fully  paid. 

Was  I  to  listen  exclusively  to  my  own  feelings  and  opinions,  I 
would  say,  that,  if  the  propositions  which  I  have  attempted  to  es 
tablish  are  correct ;  if  I  am  not  mistaken  in  my  sincere  conviction, 
that  the  war  was  unprovoked  by  the  Mexicans,  and  has  been  one 

1  J  .          ,:,.,     .-••      ...-"...,.          " 

of  jniguitous  aggression^on^our^art ;  it  necessarily  follows  that, 
accordingTo  tKe  Hlctates  of  justice,  the  United  States  are  bound  to 
indemnify  them,  for  having  invaded  their  territory,  bombarded  their 
towns,  and  inflicted  all  the  miseries  of  war  on  a  people,  who  were 
in  defence  of  their  own  homes.  If  all  this  be  true,  the 


32 

United  States  would  give  but  an  inadequate  compensation  for  the 
injuries  they  have  inflicted,  by  assuming  the  payment  of  the  indem 
nities  justly  due  to  their  own  citizens. 

Even  if  a  fair  purchase  of  territory  should  be  convenient  to  both 
parties,  it  would  be  far  preferable  to  postpone  it  for  the  present, 
among  other  reasons,  in  order  that  it  should  not  have  the  appear 
ance  of  being  imposed  on  Mexico.  There  are  also  some  important 
considerations,  to  which  it  may  not  be  improper  to  call  at  this  time 
the  public  attention. 

Our  population  may  at  this  time  be  assumed,  as  amounting  to 
twenty  millions.  Although  the  ratio  of  natural  increase  has  already 
been  lessened,  from  thirty  three  to  about  thirty  per  cent,  in  ten 
years,  the  deficiency  has  been,  and  will  probably  continue,  for  a 
while,  to  be  compensated  by  the  prodigious  increase  of  immigration 
from  foreign  countries.  An  increase  of  thirty  per  cent,  would  add 
to  our  population  six  millions,  within  ten,  and  near  fourteen  millions 
in  twenty  years.  At  the  rate  of  only  twenty  five  per  cent,  it  will 
add  five  millions  in  ten,  and  more  than  eleven  millions  in  twenty 
years.  That  the  fertile  uncultivated  land,  within  the  limits  of  the 
States  admitted,  or  immediately  admissible  in  the  Union,  could 
sustain  three  times  that  number  is  indubitable.  But  the  indomita 
ble  energy,  the  locomotive  propensities,  and  all  the  habits  of  the 
settlers  of  new  countries  are  such,  that,  not  even  the  united  efforts 
of  both  Governments  can  or  will  prevent  their  occupying  within 
twenty  if  not  within  ten  years,  every  district,  as  far  as  the  Pacific, 
and  whether  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States  or  of  Mexico, 
which  shall  not  have  previously  been  actually  and  bonafide  occu 
pied  and  settled  by  others.  It  may  be  said  that  this  is  justifiable  by 
Natural  Law ;  that,  for  the  same  reason,  which  sets  aside  the  right 
of  discovery,  if  not  followed  by  actual  occupation  within  a  reason 
able  time,  the  rights  of  Spain  and  Mexico  have  been  forfeited  by 
their  neglect,  or  inability,  during  a  period  of  three  hundred  years,  to 
colonize  a  country,  which,  during  the  whole  of  that  period,  they  held 
undisputed  by  any  other  foreign  nation.  And  it  may  perhaps  be 
observed  that,  had  the  Government  of  the  United  States  waited  for 
the  operation  of  natural  and  irresistible  causes,  these  alone  would 
have  given  them,  without  a  war,  more  than  they  want  at  this  mo 
ment. 

However  plausible  all  this  may  appear,  it  is  nevertheless  certain, 
that  it  will  be  an  acquisition  of  territory  for  the  benefit  of  the  peo- 


33 

pie  of  the  United  States,  and  insolation  of  solemn  treaties.  Not 
only  collisions  must  be  avoided,  and  the  renewal  of  another  illicit 
annexation  be  prevented  ;  but  the  two  countries  must  coolly  con 
sider  their  relative  position  ;  and  whatever  portion  of  territory,  not 
actually  settled  by  the  Mexicans,  and  of  no  real  utility  to  them, 
they  may  be  disposed  to  cede,  must  be  acquired  by  a  treaty  freely 
assented  to,  and  for  a  reasonable  compensation.  But  this  is  not  the 
time  for  the  discussion  of  a  proper  final  arrangement.  We  must 
wait  till  peace  shall  have  been  restored,  and  angry  feelings  shall 
have  .  jsubsidecT  St  present  the  only  object  is  Peace,  immediate 
peace,  a  just  peace,  and  no  acquisition  of  territory,  but  that  which 
may  be  absolutely  necessary  for  effecting  the  great  object  in  view. 
The  most  simple  terms,  those  which  will  only  provide  for  the  ad 
justment  of  the  Texas  boundary  and  for  the  payment  of  the  indem 
nities  due  to  our  citizens,  and,  in  every  other  respect,  restore  things 
as  they  stood  before  the  beginning  of  hostilities,  appear  to  me  the 
most  eligible.  For  that  purpose  I  may  be  permitted  to  wish,  that 
the  discussion  of  the  terms  should  not  be  embarrassed  by  the  intro 
duction  of  any  other  matter.  There  are  other  considerations, 
highly  important,  and  not  foreign  to  the  great  question  of  an  ex 
tension  of  territory,  but  which  may,  without  any  inconvenience  or 
commitment,  be  postponed,  and  should  not  be  permitted  to  impede 
the  immediate  termination  of  this  lamentable  war. 

I  have  gone  farther  than  I  intended.  It  is  said  that  a  rallying 
point  is  wanted  by  the  friends  of  peace.  Let  them  unite,  boldly 
express  their  opinions,  and  use  their  utmost  endeavors  in  promot 
ing  an  immediate  termination  of  the  war.  For  the  people,  no 
other  banner  is  necessary.  But  their  representatives  in  Congress 
assembled  are  alone  competent  to  ascertain,  alone  vested  with  the 
legitimate  power  of  deciding  what  course  should  be  pursued  at  this 
momentous  crisis,  what  are  the  best  means  for  carrying  into  effect 
their  own  views,  whatever  these  may  be.  We  may  wait  with 
hope  and  confidence  the  result  of  their  deliberations. 


I  have  tried,  in  this  essay,  to  confine  myself  to  the  questions  at 
issue  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico.  Whether  the  Ex 
ecutive  has,  in  any  respect,  exceeded  his  legitimate  powers ;  whether 
he  is,  for  any  of  his  acts,  liable  to  animadversion,  are  questions 
which  do  not  concern  Mexico. 

5 


34 

There  are  certainly  some  doubtful  assumptions  of  power,  and 
some  points  on  which  explanations  are  necessary.  The  most  im 
portant  is  the  reason,  which  may  have  induced  the  President, 
when  he  considered  the  war  as  necessary  and  almost  unavoidable, 
not  to  communicate  to  Congress,  which  was  all  that  time  in  ses 
sion,  the  important  steps  he  had  taken,  till  after  hostilities,  and  in 
deed  actual  war  had  taken  place.  The  substitution,  for  war  con 
tributions,  of  an  arbitrary  and  varying  tariff,  appears  to  me  to  be 
of  a  doubtful  nature ;  and  it  is  hoped,  that  the  subject  will  attract 
the  early  attention  of  Congress.  I  am  also  clearly  of  opinion,  that 
the  provisions  of  the  law  respecting  volunteers,  which  authorizes 
them  to  elect  their  officers,  is  a  direct  violation  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  which  recognizes  no  other  land  force  than  the 
army  and  the  militia,  and  which  vests  in  the  President  and  Senate 
the  exclusive  power  of  appointing  all  the  officers  of  the  United 
States,  whose  appointments  are  not  otherwise  provided  for  in  the 
constitution  itself.  (With  respect  to  precedents,  refer  to  the  act 
of  July  6th,  1812,  chap.  461,  (cxxxviii.)  enacted  with  due  delibe 
ration,  and  which  repeals,  in  that  respect,  the  act  on  same  subject 
of  February  6th,  1812.) 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


RENEWED  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  IMMEDIATE 
RECALL 


LlbHAKY 
DUE  JAN  2  5 


DUE  FEB  2  L 


UCD  LIBRAR' 
DUE  MAR  i5  19711 

MAR  13 R 


L- 


LIBRARY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  DAVIS 

Book  Slip-50m-8,'69(N831s8)458-A-31/5 


N9  677637 


E407 

Gallatin,  A.          G169 
Peace  with  Mexico. 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


